吉林阴茎边上长东西怎么回事吉林阳痿早泄能彻底治疗好吗,吉林无菌性前列腺炎该如何治,吉林男科医院 几点下班,吉林治疗男科哪家医院口碑好,吉林男子性功能障碍的治疗方法,吉林做个割包皮手术要多少钱,吉林看包皮的费用

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

Rosie Raabe is an artist, a pet mom, a plant mom and a part of the cystic fibrosis community. She was diagnosed at three years old.“I wear a mask because if certain particles of bacteria and stuff get into my lungs, it will settle in there and it will cause endless lung infections,” Raabe said.According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, cystic fibrosis is a progressive, genetic disease that causes persistent lung infections and limits the ability to breath over time.“A lot of people think of it as just a lung disease, but actually all your organs are involved. Especially for me, it is digestive,” Raabe said.Just two and a half years ago, Raabe underwent a liver transplant donated by her brother."I’m not crying in the video because I’m trying so hard not to, but it is the most terrifying thing to choose to go through something like that. And actually, at the end of that video I’m like, 'can I bring my mask?'”Masks have been an everyday part of Raabe’s life. So when she hears there are people who refuse to wear a mask during this pandemic, Raabe says she feels shocked, frustrated and upset somebody would be willing to risk the safety of someone’s life.“I just feel like it’s really inhuman to be so selfish.”She says a virus like the one that causes COVID-19 would have devastating effects on her.“I can’t even imagine what it would do to me, especially me. Because I’m on immuno-suppression for my liver transplant," Raabe said. "So having cystic fibrosis alone is scary enough to get something like this virus – I mean my lungs aren’t in tip-top shape – but on top of that, having immune-suppression, I’m even more susceptible.”Studies have increasingly shown that masks play a large role in preventing illness. Dr. Chris Nyquist is the Medical Director of Infection Prevention and Control at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Whether somebody has cancer, leukemia or in Raabe’s case, cystic fibrosis, Dr. Nyquist says wearing a face covering can make the difference between life and death for people with fragile immune systems.“The biggest benefit for people wearing cloth-face coverings in public is it actually captures the droplets and spittle that comes out of your mouth and keeps it from landing on someone else and prevents infection," Dr. Nyquist said. "And if you have two people who are both wearing cloth face coverings, that’s a great way to stop the spread of germs.”If you’re thinking, you're not sick, so why would you need to wear a mask? Well, doctors say you could still be spreading the virus without even realizing it.“We recognize that more and more people are without symptoms who are infected with COVID-19 and the CDC will give you numbers of up to 40% of people are asymptomatic. So they have the virus in their secretions, in their nasal secretions and in their mouth, and no symptoms. And they’re like ‘I’m clean, I’m free, I’m not sick.’ But that’s exactly the kind of person who really needs to be wearing that cloth face covering so they don’t unknowingly transmit to people,” Dr. Nyquist said.Raabe says she’s heard people say they choose not to wear a mask right now because it’s hard to breath with it on. However, in her experience, it’s still possible to breath with a mask on, even at 30% lung function.“Most people have above 100% lung function, and I had 30%, and I still wore that mask every time I was in public. So it’s just crazy to me that people are saying it’s so hard to breathe – 'I can’t breathe' – I’m like, ‘you probably have 100, maybe 90 or 80% lung function. Like you can breathe,’" Raabe said.Dr. Nyquist says she hopes more people will willingly choose to wear a mask as a part of the social contract to love and care for one another.“It isn’t politics to wear a face mask. It’s really common love of humanity, and it’s what we’re supposed to do for one another,” Dr. Nyquist said.“I have to wear one for the rest of my life, you have to wear one for a few months. I just feel like if you could save so many people’s lives, why wouldn’t you do it?” Raabe said. 4040

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Twenty-three states have sued to stop the Trump administration from revoking California's authority to set emission standards for cars and trucks.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading the lawsuit filed Friday, along with Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board.The Trump administration on Thursday revoked California's authority to set its own auto emission standards. The state has had that power for decades under a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act.The lawsuit argues that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to revoke California's waiver.Becerra says the Trump administration's action fails to respect states' authority to protect public health.Four automakers have said they would voluntarily follow California's standards. 842

RICHMOND, Va. — There has been a major drop in the number of people behind bars in the U.S. An analysis by The Marshall Project and The Associated Press found that between March and June, more than 100,000 people were released from state and federal prisons. That's a drop of 8%. By comparison, the Vera Institute of Justice found that for all of 2019, the state and federal prison population fell by 2.2%. As the U.S. struggles with the coronavirus, prison reform advocates are urging releases to halt its spread in correctional facilities. But their release, and how they behave when they’re out, is likely to affect the larger criminal justice reform movement. 671

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Trump administration cancelled nearly billion in federal money for California's high-speed rail project Thursday, further throwing into question the future of the ambitious plan to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.The Federal Railroad Administration's announcement it would not give California the money came several months after sniping between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom over the project. The administration will still try to force California to return another .5 billion that has already been spent.Trump had seized on Newsom's remarks in February that the project as planned would cost too much and take too long. Newsom has shifted the project's immediate focus to a 171-mile line in the state's Central Valley, but he said he's still committed to building the full line.Still, federal officials said California has repeatedly failed to make "reasonable progress" and "abandoned its original vision."Newsom declared the action "illegal and a direct assault on California" and said the state would go to court to keep the money."This is California's money, appropriated by Congress, and we will vigorously defend it in court," he said in an emailed statement.Voters first approved about billion in bond funds for the project in 2008. It has faced repeated cost overruns and delays since. It's now projected to cost more than billion and be finished by 2033.The 9 million the state is losing is critical to the chronically under-funded project. 1524